Tackling Climate Change with COVID-19 Urgency

The COVID-19 threat has shown that governments can act swiftly and resolutely in a crisis, and that people are ready to change their behavior for the good of humanity. The world must now urgently adopt the same approach to the existential challenge of climate change.

DUBLIN/CAPE TOWN – In recent weeks, the world has been focused on urgently battling the fast-evolving COVID-19 pandemic. The World Health Organization, governments, and central banks have acted rapidly to mitigate the virus’s impact, while scientists, policymakers, and public-health experts are sharing vital data via sophisticated tracking tools. And the large number of people who have recovered from the virus attests to the efficacy of the response to date.

But in addition to the novel and immediate COVID-19 threat, the world also faces an unprecedented climate and environmental emergency. Governments and businesses must now start addressing climate change with the same resolve and urgency that they are showing in fighting the pandemic.

Consider air pollution, which kills an estimated seven million people worldwide each year. Unlike COVID-19, this threat is not new, stems from multiple sources, and is closely linked to how we heat and light our homes, move around, and deal with waste – daily habits that are deeply embedded in our lifestyles and economic systems. Tackling such a complex challenge thus requires action on many fronts to reduce the risk of even more premature deaths.

Indeed, while the COVID-19 response has demonstrated the power of open, collaborative science and swift action in dealing with emerging threats, it also has highlighted deep-seated issues that limit our ability to respond to challenges like global environmental change. In particular, the world is waking up to the possibility that the pandemic – and the strict measures introduced to contain it – could result in an even deeper economic downturn than the one triggered by the 2008 global financial crisis.

The systemic nature of such risks may also explain why climate action to date has been insufficient. The science is clear: Global carbon dioxide emissions must decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by mid-century if the world is to have a chance of preventing catastrophic global warming. But although the need for urgent and decisive government action in this area has never been greater, political leaders have so far failed to rise to the challenge.

In fact, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres’s warning at last December’s COP25 climate conference that “we are knowingly destroying the very support systems keeping us alive” might be the most alarming words ever uttered by a UN leader. As matters stand, countries’ nationally determined contributions under the 2015 Paris agreement would have to be five times more ambitious in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C by 2050.

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world's leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more – all for less than $2 a week.

Subscribe Now

Likewise, although a growing number of companies are pledging to become carbon neutral, this share needs to increase significantly. Too many multinational corporations and investors resist adopting climate-friendly policies and exert heavy pressure on governments, which in turn are unwilling to take the bold and potentially unpopular steps that are needed. Yet, a relatively small number of fossil-fuel companies are responsible for a significant proportion of global CO2 emissions. By putting a real price on carbon, governments can set in motion a controlled shift away from fossil-fuel dependence.

Digital platforms can play their part, too. After all, Google and Facebook have removed false information about COVID-19, along with offers that try to profit from it. They should also consider limiting the visibility of people who spread false information about climate change, or of companies that depend on climate-endangering activities.

This year marks a critical juncture for global climate action, and not only because it falls halfway between the 2010 baseline for CO2 emissions and the 2030 deadline for significant cuts. It also is a bumper year for environmental negotiations, with new global biodiversity goals expected later this year (October’s meeting has now been postponed, owing to COVID-19), and COP26 now scheduled to take place in 2021. With countries’ climate pledges up for review, COP26 will be a make-or-break moment that tells us whether we can avert a global climate disaster.

Any global climate action must start by considering our common humanity, and the need for solutions that are just and equitable for everyone. Because the climate-change burden falls most heavily on the countries least responsible for causing it, those that are most responsible – the rich and developed countries – must lead the way in cutting emissions.

In many respects, the last 12 months have been encouraging, with creative responses to climate change and indications of behavioral shifts such as new no-fly trends. Hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren around the world have protested against climate inaction, spurred on by the indomitable Greta Thunberg, while grassroots climate mobilization has reached unprecedented levels.

But climate policies that disadvantage certain groups can lead to a backlash, such as the “Yellow Vest” protests that exploded in France in response to a planned fuel-tax increase. Such unrest highlights the need to put social justice at the heart of our climate response.

In 2020, the world is at a social tipping point. Scientists and civil society must jointly raise their voices and make every effort to ensure that we emerge on the right side of it. Young people have urged political leaders to listen to the scientists. And, as in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific community stands ready to work side by side with governments and businesses to put humanity on a sustainable climate path while managing the development trade-offs responsibly.

The COVID-19 threat has shown that governments can act swiftly and resolutely in a crisis, and that people are ready to change their behavior for the good of humanity. The world must now urgently adopt the same approach to the existential challenge of climate change.

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

The science does Not predict “catastrophic” damage is we do not reach the lower levels of carbon emissions. “Catastrophic” is the authors’ euphemism. It is not a word from the scientific documents. Let’s be clear about what the science does, and does not, say.

I think you are deluded. People always act to save their bacon when the threat appears imminent or scary. If you tell people a bear escaped from the New York Zoo - half the state will go tell their kids to come inside. If you tell people that on the current trajectory of things, there is a 10% chance that the World will end each decade from *say* nuclear war, or climate change - a good number of people just shrug and say "My life is rather boring - I can't wait!".

Les Gilets Jaunes protested not because of a fuel tax increase but because their incomes have dwindled over the decades while Paris has remained competitive. This is as a result of outsized French involvement of government in the economy, 35 hour working week, 6 weeks paid vacation et cetera. Compare this to the Chinese who work 9/9/6 in the tech industry - or 70 hours a week if you prefer.

Social justice is a terrible euphemism that needs to go away. What you mean to say is higher taxes. I think there should be an effective doubling of tax on investors and MNCs - but there are massive practical implications of trying to implement such a thing, as it requires you get every little European country and tax haven to co-operate with you, something they are unlikely to entertain.

It would mean a blanket ban on right wing politics. They have already banned most far right channels - Alex Jones among them. If they ban centre right too expect severe consequences for them. You cannot wave a magic wand to change the politics of a nation.

Political leaders are influenced primarily by their donors, who work with them to try and dictate to the voters what they want. The Republican propaganda is working well - implying green will mean income sacrifices when in fact it does not - for example - TCO of a Tesla is lower than a similar gas car, for example the low cost of wind and solar, for example - the zero effect on the economy of tariffs.

What is not so solvable is long term capital expenditure - coal plants are the base load and most are financed over 50 years, their useful life. No utility will just 'turn them off' as it would mean at least a doubling of electricity cost. Same goes for the existing fleet of ship, airplanes and ICE vehicles - they must swerve out their useful life.

New Comment

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Mass protests over racial injustice, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a sharp economic downturn have plunged the United States into its deepest crisis in decades. Will the public embrace radical, systemic reforms, or will the specter of civil disorder provoke a conservative backlash?

For democratic countries like the United States, the COVID-19 crisis has opened up four possible political and socioeconomic trajectories. But only one path forward leads to a destination that most people would want to reach.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.